User talk:Xan747

Welcome!

Hi Xan747! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 01:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

As it happens I've noticed you contributions too! Thanks for the welcome. Xan747 (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

paraphasing

Thanks for your interest in the elephant article. I feel like you should work more on your paraphrasing of sources. They are too close. See Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing. LittleJerry (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I will do so. Xan747 (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

I noticed you forgot to close the edit request after marking it as "not done", nor did you sign your response. Don't worry, I already closed it for you, but I recommend the use of this tool in the future since it makes the response process easier and helps to prevent said mistakes from happening in the first place. Hope this helps. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 00:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that, thanks for the cleanup and the tip on the edit tool. Xan747 (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Invalid sourcing at GeometryDash

Hi, could you please stop removing the reliable secondary source, The Atlantic, and replacing it with an unofficial fan site for a fan-reproduction of the game? This is very disruptive. -- ferret (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

With apologies to @Lettherebedarklight, I now realize that I was fooled by the fan site. However, will you please notice that the Atlantic article is WP:CIRCULAR ... it links to and quotes a previous version the Wikipedia article. Xan747 (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I've already removed it separately. -- ferret (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Xan747 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

William Hamilton

Given that you had already decided that I was a stubborn cuss who never listened to anyone else, it was very courteous and WP:CIVIL of you to nevertheless wait for me to reply, prior to changing the image. I hope the April 6 retraction surprised you. You weren't entirely wrong; I am a stubborn cuss. But not too stubborn to change my opinion when I saw persuasive new evidence. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki, Lol, I hope I didn't come across as that critical! And I am sorry I missed your reversal. Since you originally uploaded the photo, could you please correct the information on the wikimedia page and also the other pages it is used? Xan747 (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not editing much these days. Feel free to have at it, if you like, on both Philip's and William's articles. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation at Huw Edwards

Do you ever read back what you've written to examine it for logical reasoning, or even to see that it makes any sense at all? It is proposed to expand the information about an allegation of drug use by an admittedly (we assume) private person who is as yet unidentified and denies it, but which is an allegation that has already been printed by all the major reliable sources in the UK over many days in hundreds of stories. Including the one already in the Huw Edwards biography here that already alleges this person has been exchanging money with Huw for elicit images, which they have also denied. You actually think it makes sense to say that it is more likely harm will result by Wikipedia relaying this information because that suggests an actual crime has occurred (noting that originally the image allegations were also likely criminal due to the implied age), rather than Wikipedia's reputation being harmed by being seen to deliberately leave out a major, if not the crucial piece of information, that explains why this whole thing became a national news story for days. You think that makes any sense at all? It is at times like this we can say it was foolish of Jimmy Wales to give up control of Wikipedia, because he for one was never minded to have Wikipedia exclude something that was highly relevant and widely reported in reliable sources, on some manufactured BLP grounds. It is a blatant case of source misrepresentation, a serious thing for so called editors. It should only happen for very good reasons, not tortuous manufactured ones that fly in the face of reality and would have these editors pretend the outside world doesn't exist. Your objections would have outsiders accept that Wikipedia content is far more trusted and impactful than hundreds of reliably sourced newspaper reports. The idea is absurd. What is not absurd is the suspicion, and you may have no part in it but others there (especially AndyTheGrump) do, that this information is being left out because Wikipedia has an agenda here. Wikipedia editors are biased, it is well known, and will likely leave out anything that supports the idea there was a legitimate public interest angle in the Sun printing the story that set this whole scandal off. It is a fact, because it has been reported in reliable sources, that a large part of the public outrage over this scandal is because a BBC employee was allegedly using their BBC salary to fund a vulnerable person's drug habit and the BBCs complaints department mishandled the allegation. As morally wrong as the former is, it is the latter that is the source of the controversy. Which is why people will readily assume your denial is part of an organized effort by Wikipedia editors to hide things which harm the BBC and make The Sun look better than the picture the Huw Edwards page now paints, admittedly for other very good reasons too. You may not like that this is the inference, but if Wikipedia had done a better job at being neutral over things like Trump and right wing UK tabloids, it wouldn't exist. It is out there now, and has already demonstrably harmed donations to Wikipedia and its "brand value" (WMF wording) to the young. If you're happy being a part of that, so be it. I am just perplexed you can't see the illogic in your reasons for rejection, if indeed they are genuinely held interpretations of policy. I have my doubts. Nobody can deny AndyTheGrump's bias and obvious gaming and the gaslighting nature of their contributions to so called talk pages, and it is the very fact nobody here stops it that also feeds into this idea Wikipedia is institutionally biased. Don't be a part of it. Xenab36 (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Help.

Hi, this user is repeatedly removing names from the page List of Rajputs even though they are properly cited. Some of them were added by you after achieving consensus on the talk page.

There seems to be a pattern where he is removing names based on religion of people involved.

Kindly help. Kshatriya Yoddha (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The user also was citing from websites such as https://www.warhistoryonline.com/, and https://www.gov.uk/government/news/paving-stone-laid-for-pakistani-born-first-world-war-hero, which are BOTH unreliable websites. No2WesternImperialism (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Both have been added by Xan747, kindly check the sources for all other names on the list... you will understand better what sources come under reliable/unreliable headers. Kshatriya Yoddha (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

For the source you gave to the article Abdus Salam, it doesn't have an author for the source. Here it is: https://www.alhakam.org/professor-abdus-salam-kbe-frs/ No2WesternImperialism (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The author is Ahmad Salam, the son of Abdus Salam... stop this gimmick. Everyone can see what your intentions are. Kshatriya Yoddha (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kshatriya Yoddha, on review, you should probably find better sources. Warhistoryonline looks more like a self-published blog than a reliable secondary publication with good editorial oversight. Government sources are ok for certain applications (population and other demographic information, public health issues, government finances, biographic information for public officials, etc.) but in this case a UK government webpage about a colonial British subject could be considered biased. Personally, I think it's ok in this case, but since it's been challenged you should take that criticism seriously. I did not know about WP:RAJ prior to this conversation. As there appears to be broad community consensus about the unreliability of British ethnographers during the Raj period, you should also seriously consider finding other, more acceptable, sources.

Please be mindful that Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND for continuation of religious and other cultural conflicts. You may be correct that @No2WesternImperialism has a bias on those grounds, but their arguments about sources appear to be sound and you need to deal with that issue, not your differences in beliefs.

Finally, in case you're not aware, you are an extended-confirmed user now and can edit the List of Rajputs article yourself. Kind Regards, Xan747 (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

PS: continuation of your dispute about sources should be taken to the appropriate talk pages where all editors can see it. Thanks, Xan747 (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I am NOT moving on the basis of religion. I have requested this user to kindly read the following: WP:RAJ, WP:RSCASTE, WP:ONUS, WP:SYNTH

The user was citing sources from the 19th-century (Raj era), and was also citing sources from poor websites that are not properly backed. And saying removing names based on religion of people involved is a personal attack.

BLP issue on Christine Lagarde

I think you may find this interesting [1]. Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I responded there, thanks. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 15:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Barbie plot editing

Hi, I edited some changes in the plot according to your new rephrasing, I hope you don't mind. I also find some word choices too concise to express the actual meaning of certain plot points, so I modified them based on the old versions. It's mostly in the first paragraph. Ertonien (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ertonien, thanks for stopping in. For my own memory, this is the comparison between my version and yours. My feedback follows.

> a wide range of

"varied" is shorter, conveys same meaning. "Diverse" might be better. Perhaps "a diversity of"? People are big on diversity.

> self-confident, self-sufficient, and successful

This is implied by "the Barbies hold all important job positions such as doctors, lawyers, and politicians", which is also more descriptive of the result of those attributes. If we do a good job telling what the Barbies do, the reader can decide how to label their personality traits and we save space.

"Positions" is also not necessary; it adds literally nothing but pixels to the screen.

> While their Ken counterparts

That implies they are peers, which they're clearly not. I called the Kens "subordinate dependents", but I'm actually not sure that's entirely correct either. (It's also somewhat redundant.) Do the Kens do any sort of useful work at all, or do they just play on the beach? It isn't clear to me, and knowing that would help me on this point.

> During a dance party

"At" is shorter, conveys same meeting.

> Arriving at Venice Beach, the two are temporarily arrested after Barbie punches a man groping her. The incident alarms the Mattel CEO, who orders their recapture.

One is not "temporarily arrested". More correct usage would be "temporarily detained", but that could imply they were let go, which isn't the case: they escaped. In my revision, I replaced less-descriptive "the incident" with more specific and significant "They escape", better explaining the chain of events with slightly less text.

> such as agreeable girlfriends, housewives, and even maids

It feels wrong to emphasize maids. Consider letting the reader choose which they'd rather not be. And though I kept "agreeable" in my version, it also felt wrong. Something needs to modify "girlfriends" but I'm not sure what, so I'm content to leave it for now.

> and other discontinued dolls

Other outcasts is more inclusive: my understanding is that Weird Barbie isn't a discontinued model, but a twin Stereotypical Barbie who was radically modified by her owner. "Other outcast dolls" would be more correct, as Sasha is not a doll.

Something else that bothers me here is that the whole discontinued models/outcasts theme isn't more explicitly described up front, it's just mentioned in passing well into the plot section. We tried to rectify that in an earlier version, which you reverted. :-(

> Barbie and Ken apologize to each other and acknowledge their failings.

That sounds so present and final. I like better, "Barbie and Ken apologize for having previously mistreated each other."

I hope these notes are helpful. Consider taking these conversations to the talk page next time, so others can participate. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 02:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, you're right, next time I'll take the conversation to the talk page, but right now I opened another discussion there about the repeating clauses with synonyms in the Plot, which is another topic.

About some of your notes:

"That implies they are peers, which they're clearly not. I called the Kens "subordinate dependents", but I'm actually not sure that's entirely correct either. (It's also somewhat redundant.) Do the Kens do any sort of useful work at all, or do they just play on the beach? It isn't clear to me, and knowing that would help me on this point."

The movie clearly shows that the Kens don't have a job at all, just playing at the beach. Ryan Gosling's Ken specifically says his job is "just beach" :D I think the Ken counterparts is a better wordchoice than the subordinate dependents because every Barbie has a Ken counterpart, but they are not really dependents, they are not financially supported by the Barbies; they are male dolls who were created for the female dolls. Despite the Barbies don't view them as their peers in that society, this is the Kens' original purpose. But if we don't want to give this implication, we can decide not to use the word counterparts or dependents, refering them as just Kens (and yes, pun intended :D).

The emphasizing maids edit wasn't mine. I disagree with it too.

"One is not "temporarily arrested". More correct usage would be "temporarily detained", but that could imply they were let go, which isn't the case: they escaped. In my revision, I replaced less-descriptive "the incident" with more specific and significant "They escape", better explaining the chain of events with slightly less text."

In the movie, Barbie and Ken didn't formally escaped from the police because they were arrested two times, and each times there was a cut beetwen scenes followed by them walking on the streets freely, which implies that they were not kept in for long. Thats why I'd stick to the "temporarily detained" wording as you suggested. And since they didn't really escaped, it was their arrest (the incident to avoid word repetition) that alarmed the Mattel CEO.

"Other outcasts is more inclusive: my understanding is that Weird Barbie isn't a discontinued model, but a twin Stereotypical Barbie who was radically modified by her owner. "Other outcast dolls" would be more correct, as Sasha is not a doll."

Sasha is not a doll, but not an outcast either. You're right about Weird Barbie. But if we just use the word outcast, that is such a wide range. Who are that other outcasts? Alan is not an outcast either, he just has no multipules. Discountined word includes "Growing Up" Skipper, Sugar Daddy Ken and every other doll whom Mattel isn't manufacturing anymore. Of course, I understand that the word discontinued is as controversial as the word outcast. Maybe we should use a rephrase. "With the assistance of Sasha, Weird Barbie, Alan, and Mattel's discontinued dolls". Therefore, we separate Sasha, Weird Barbie, and Alan from the discontinued dolls.

Barbie and Ken apologize to each other and acknowledge their failings.

"That sounds so present and final. I like better, "Barbie and Ken apologize for having previously mistreated each other."

In my opinon, acknowleding their failings is a better accomplishment for both of them than acknowleding their mistreatment to the other. What I mean is Ken actually just mimicked Barbie's mistreatment as a sort of revenge, and Barbie was the one who created this problem in the first place. Ken never really apologized for that, but sincerely admitted his failing as a leader and that he didn't really enjoyed the patriarchal system anyway. On the other hand, Barbie had to apologize to him and admit that she failed Ken as a friend.

I hope you'll find some of these notes useful for the Plot. Ertonien (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

> Ken specifically says his job is "just beach"

That needs to be made explicit in the plot summary. If they're not financially dependent on the Barbies, the implication is they're actually being paid to play on the beach, which is quite humorous.

−

[[Stereotype|Stereotypical]] Barbie ("Barbie") and a wide range of fellow Barbies reside in Barbieland, a [[Matriarchy|matriarchal]] society where women are self-confident, self-sufficient, and successful. While their Ken counterparts spend their days recreating at the beach, the Barbies hold all important job positions such as doctors, lawyers, and politicians. Beach Ken ("Ken") is only happy when he is with Barbie and seeks a closer relationship, but Barbie rebuffs him in favor of independence and female friendships.

+

[[Stereotype|Stereotypical]] Barbie ("Barbie") and a wide range of fellow Barbies reside in Barbieland, a [[Matriarchy|matriarchal]] society where the women all have prestigious roles, such as doctors, lawyers, and politicans. The Kens consider it their only job to recreate on the beach all day. Beach Ken ("Ken") is only happy when he is with Barbie and seeks a closer relationship, but she rebuffs him in favor of independence and female friendships.

If she is leading him on (see below) this is the place to mention that, and I would modify the final sentence to say so while keeping the same amount of text.

> they are male dolls who were created for the female dolls

For what? Companionship? Entertainment? To feel superior to someone?

> "temporarily detained"

Ok, I made that change.

> "With the assistance of Sasha, Weird Barbie, Allan, and Mattel's discontinued dolls"

Sorry, I still don't like it. I think the first paragraph of the Plot section should describe who are the outcasts and why. It's an important dynamic throughout the entire plot, and the reader should be made aware of it right from the start. Then we can say, With the assistance of Sasha, Weird Barbie, Allan, and the other outcast dolls [...]

> Ken actually just mimicked Barbie's mistreatment as a sort of revenge

How exactly did Barbie mistreat him? Simply rebuffing his romantic overtures doesn't qualify, that's appropriate boundary-setting. A friend of mine who saw the movie said she was "leading him on". Is that true?

> Ken never really apologized for that, but sincerely admitted his failing as a leader and that he didn't really enjoyed the patriarchal system anyway.

That's definitely worth a mention.

> On the other hand, Barbie had to apologize to him and admit that she failed Ken as a friend.

That's so much better than just saying she apologized for her failings. I think there's plenty of space to describe some specific mistreatments and failings rather than simply labeling them as such. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 16:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

About the first pharagraph, this is the changes I suggest:

"Stereotypical Barbie ("Barbie") and a diversity of fellow dolls reside in Barbieland, a matriarchal society where the Barbies hold all important jobs such as doctors, lawyers, and politicians, while the Kens spend their days in recreational activities at the beach. Beach Ken ("Ken") is only happy when he is with Barbie and seeks a closer relationship, but Barbie rebuffs him in favor of independence and female friendships."

I don't think we have to emphasize that the Kens consider "beach" as their only job. For Gosling's Ken, it isn't really a profession, it just something he thinks he's good at. We really don't need to over explain these kind of roles between the Kens and the Barbies because they're just dolls. They don't think like humans about these kind of matters, don't see themselves in the way we see them. And if we start to over explain these issues in their society, the plot just gets complicated.

> Sorry, I still don't like it. I think the first paragraph of the Plot section should describe who are the outcasts and why. It's an important dynamic throughout the entire plot, and the reader should be made aware of it right from the start. Then we can say, With the assistance of Sasha, Weird Barbie, Allan, and the other outcast dolls [...]"'

Okay, we can describe who are the outcasts in the first paragraph, but let's just try to limit ourselves to one sentence; a sentence that is concise and fits well into the structure of the paragraph.

> How exactly did Barbie mistreat him? Simply rebuffing his romantic overtures doesn't qualify, that's appropriate boundary-setting.

Barbie took him for granted and never really apriciated that he was always there for her; that's something Barbie herself admit it when she apologized. But she wasn't leading him on; she just never felt love for him and didn't realized that she's hurting Ken's feelings.

> A friend of mine who saw the movie said she was "leading him on". Is that true?

Sorry but I have to ask: have you even seen the movie? Because if you don't, it's really hard to write the plot worthily. I feel like I have to explain a lot of plot points, and, based on how you interpret them, you try to decide what is important and what is not. I apologize if it's not true.

Back to the topic, I don't think we have to over explain this scene either. The "apologize to each other and acknowledge their failings" sums up this scene perfectly in one short sentence. If we start to detailng it, it just leads to repeating the meaning of the already well summarized main clause. You said it yourself, if we do a good job at these things, we can save space, and readers will unterstand the meaning of the scene as well. Ertonien (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)